For over a year now journalists, civil liberties advocates, and members of Congress have been asking the Obama administration to release internal memoranda from the Office of Legal Counsel justifying Obama's targeted killing program. While the White House continues to deny that such memos exist, NBC is reporting that it has acquired the next best thing: A secretish 16-page white paper from the Department of Justice that was provided to select members of the Senate last June.

[t]he 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.

[T]he confidential Justice Department “white paper” introduces a more expansive definition of self-defense or imminent attack than described by Brennan or Holder in their public speeches. It refers, for example, to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.

Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”

It is the same. It is an insurrection by US citizens with warlike intentions upon their country.

One would be an obvious declaration of war the other would be suspected but not tried. We as individuals either have rights or we don't, but the government shouldn't be able to target you without a conviction.

__________________
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father ... And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

"If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson

One would be an obvious declaration of war the other would be suspected but not tried. We as individuals either have rights or we don't, but the government shouldn't be able to target you without a conviction.

They are not a country, and therefore, incapable of making a declaration of war. In terms of our response, we viewed it as an uprising.

They are not a country, and therefore, incapable of making a declaration of war. In terms of our response, we viewed it as an uprising.

They are US citizens and should be afforded the same rights as everyone else here. A police action not a military action is in order. Now if we have absolute proof that said individual is a terrorist then they become fair game(same as denouncing citizenship). Let it be known I haven't waivered on my stance on this at all.

__________________
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father ... And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

"If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson

Turns out that Taco has provided the only sane response in the other thread:

"I'm not really interested in doing that. I'd rather talk to someone who is smart enough to know without needing to be walked through the basics. It's one thing for you to find the question interesting as a matter of constitutional principle and the fact that this is brand new territory for this nation. But for you to be completely in the dark about the question - that's ignorance that I don't have the patience to suffer. Ask someone else."

__________________
"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth ..."
– Pope Saint John Paul II

They are US citizens and should be afforded the same rights as everyone else here. A police action not a military action is in order. Now if we have absolute proof that said individual is a terrorist then they become fair game(same as denouncing citizenship). Let it be known I haven't waivered on my stance on this at all.

and yet we don't know what the criteria is for launching a strike. Everyone assumes it is a haphazard hunch. I am inclined to believe that there is a fair amount of certainty involved.

The difference stands on what should be viewed as an act of war and a law breaking act. If there is a good amount of reason that you are engaged in acts of war against this country, then I don't give a **** where you were born.

Turns out that Taco has provided the only sane response in the other thread:

"I'm not really interested in doing that. I'd rather talk to someone who is smart enough to know without needing to be walked through the basics. It's one thing for you to find the question interesting as a matter of constitutional principle and the fact that this is brand new territory for this nation. But for you to be completely in the dark about the question - that's ignorance that I don't have the patience to suffer. Ask someone else."

Lol, ok

I'll use my manslator: "I'm a pussy and I bitch because I don't agree with the policies of the president in any way, shape, or form"